Anonymous wrote:
It’s really under appreciated that Trumps DOJ prosecuted Cohen for this very same scheme. Trump is now complaining that it didn’t happen/it’s not illegal/ he’s being unfairly targeted, but he did nothing at all to stop the prosecution of Cohen.

No, they did not. They prosecuted for things completely unrelated to Trump and then threw in a guilty plea for this just to fool people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I might feel bad if it was anyone other than Ted Cruz.

Well during the general election the Enquirer would constantly run stories about Hillary.

The Other Way the National Enquirer Helped Elect Trump
In addition to a secret agreement to bury the story of an alleged affair, the tabloid publisher AMI also published a stream of outlandish attacks on Hillary Clinton.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/national-inquirer-helped-trump-attacking-clinton/578116/

These “stories” get picked up by the more mainstream media and Hillary would have to answer questions about these stories. The stories were a long the lines of do you still beat your dog? You know stories to increase negative perceptions of candidates.

+1
The same media were supposed to pretend is “liberal.”

+1 Here’s how the “liberal media” reacted:

The people who runs these media outlets either wanted Trump to win or they are the dumbest people alive. There’s no other explanation for their behavior.

They were only thinking of the ratings, click$, and controversy. They didn’t think he could win so it was totally fine to obsessively cover his sideshow of a campaign because people were interested!!!!! Free market baby!!!!!

In 2016 I was working at a place that often had cable news playing on the break room and lobby TV’s - not usually Fox News, even, it was a pretty even mix of Fox and CNN and the network morning shows if I was there early in the morning - and I swear half the time the news networks were covering a Trump rally. Just giving him critique-free, uncritical airtime. I stopped watching the Today show in 2015 because they would have Trump call in seemingly every morning and just let him rant and never push back or question. Then when he was actually elected in 2016 it was the worst thing ever and how could this happen, oh but now we’ll cover him critically and ask questions because that’s what’s getting ratings and clicks and public support now.

Actually that is not what happened. The Enquirer bought the rights to negative stories about Trump and buried the stories.

They buried stories critical of Trump, but also coordinated directly with Trump to make up fake stories about his opponents in the GOP and Hillary Clinton (aka "fake news").

They were doing both - Pecker admitted to it yesterday on the witness stand. It was direct coordination with Trump himself and then Michael Cohen on behalf of Trump.

How is that legal?
Surely that can’t be legal, right?

Trump's lawyer is arguing that in a democracy the only way to get elected is to "influence the election." Plus, 1st Amendment rights of both Trump to advocate for himself and the National Inquirer to support whomever they want in the manner they choose.

Ted Cruz and his father really ought to be suing the National Inquirer for libel.

The legality of the coordination hinges on the payment arrangement between Trump and the National Inquirer. Trump initially reimbursed the NI for killing stories. But then he stopped paying them and NI was eating the costs for killing stories. That's an illegal campaign contribution.

I have been wondering how this is relevant to the Stormy Daniels pay-off scheme. Is it establishing a pattern of illegal behavior?

It proves a conspiracy. From this thread on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1cbd3cn/trump_hushmoney_trial_witness_drops_bombshell/, “itsatumbleweed” says “I may be mistaken, but Pecker basically entirely confirmed the conspiracy to affect the election. The relevant law:

Election Law 17-152 prohibits conspiracies to promote a candidate’s election through unlawful means.

Since he was falsifying paperwork to make these payments, he was part of a conspiracy to promote his election using unlawful means. That makes the falsified documents felonious.

If Pecker's testimony is viewed as truthful, this pretty much does it.” Which “waffle299” adds to with:
“No softening language is needed. He testified to:

A conspiracy (him, Trump, Cohen)
To help elect Trump (favorable press)
And trash his opponents (made up stories)
At the direction of Trump (Cohen directed and reviewed stories)
While keeping the conspiracy secret (knowledge of guilt)
That's campaign interference.

Cohen will be up later to explain:

Campaign funds were used (felony campaign funding violation (
Multiple times (each indictment)
Funneled through Cohen (conspiracy)
To conceal the source of the cash (knowledge of guilt)
For which Cohen was paid (motive, disarm defense)
And went to jail for (disarm defense, convey the stakes)”

In other words the dunking on Ted Cruz and his father, while fun and meme worthy, is part of the proof that Donald Trump engaged in the crime he is accused of.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I might feel bad if it was anyone other than Ted Cruz.

Well during the general election the Enquirer would constantly run stories about Hillary.

The Other Way the National Enquirer Helped Elect Trump
In addition to a secret agreement to bury the story of an alleged affair, the tabloid publisher AMI also published a stream of outlandish attacks on Hillary Clinton.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/national-inquirer-helped-trump-attacking-clinton/578116/

These “stories” get picked up by the more mainstream media and Hillary would have to answer questions about these stories. The stories were a long the lines of do you still beat your dog? You know stories to increase negative perceptions of candidates.

+1
The same media were supposed to pretend is “liberal.”

+1 Here’s how the “liberal media” reacted:

The people who runs these media outlets either wanted Trump to win or they are the dumbest people alive. There’s no other explanation for their behavior.

They were only thinking of the ratings, click$, and controversy. They didn’t think he could win so it was totally fine to obsessively cover his sideshow of a campaign because people were interested!!!!! Free market baby!!!!!

In 2016 I was working at a place that often had cable news playing on the break room and lobby TV’s - not usually Fox News, even, it was a pretty even mix of Fox and CNN and the network morning shows if I was there early in the morning - and I swear half the time the news networks were covering a Trump rally. Just giving him critique-free, uncritical airtime. I stopped watching the Today show in 2015 because they would have Trump call in seemingly every morning and just let him rant and never push back or question. Then when he was actually elected in 2016 it was the worst thing ever and how could this happen, oh but now we’ll cover him critically and ask questions because that’s what’s getting ratings and clicks and public support now.

Actually that is not what happened. The Enquirer bought the rights to negative stories about Trump and buried the stories.

They buried stories critical of Trump, but also coordinated directly with Trump to make up fake stories about his opponents in the GOP and Hillary Clinton (aka "fake news").

They were doing both - Pecker admitted to it yesterday on the witness stand. It was direct coordination with Trump himself and then Michael Cohen on behalf of Trump.

How is that legal?
Surely that can’t be legal, right?

Trump's lawyer is arguing that in a democracy the only way to get elected is to "influence the election." Plus, 1st Amendment rights of both Trump to advocate for himself and the National Inquirer to support whomever they want in the manner they choose.

Ted Cruz and his father really ought to be suing the National Inquirer for libel.

The legality of the coordination hinges on the payment arrangement between Trump and the National Inquirer. Trump initially reimbursed the NI for killing stories. But then he stopped paying them and NI was eating the costs for killing stories. That's an illegal campaign contribution.

Yes and also Trump booking the payments as legal fees for his business was fraud and not reporting them as campaign contributions was fraud. All of this has been established in Cohen’s prosecution by DOJ (while Trump was President) and Pecker’s agreement with the FEC to pay fines for making illegal campaign contributions. All that is left is to apply the same facts and standards to the co-conspirator who was the one who personally and politically benefited from the fraudulent scheme.

It’s really under appreciated that Trumps DOJ prosecuted Cohen for this very same scheme. Trump is now complaining that it didn’t happen/it’s not illegal/ he’s being unfairly targeted, but he did nothing at all to stop the prosecution of Cohen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I might feel bad if it was anyone other than Ted Cruz.

Well during the general election the Enquirer would constantly run stories about Hillary.

The Other Way the National Enquirer Helped Elect Trump
In addition to a secret agreement to bury the story of an alleged affair, the tabloid publisher AMI also published a stream of outlandish attacks on Hillary Clinton.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/national-inquirer-helped-trump-attacking-clinton/578116/

These “stories” get picked up by the more mainstream media and Hillary would have to answer questions about these stories. The stories were a long the lines of do you still beat your dog? You know stories to increase negative perceptions of candidates.

+1
The same media were supposed to pretend is “liberal.”

+1 Here’s how the “liberal media” reacted:

The people who runs these media outlets either wanted Trump to win or they are the dumbest people alive. There’s no other explanation for their behavior.

They were only thinking of the ratings, click$, and controversy. They didn’t think he could win so it was totally fine to obsessively cover his sideshow of a campaign because people were interested!!!!! Free market baby!!!!!

In 2016 I was working at a place that often had cable news playing on the break room and lobby TV’s - not usually Fox News, even, it was a pretty even mix of Fox and CNN and the network morning shows if I was there early in the morning - and I swear half the time the news networks were covering a Trump rally. Just giving him critique-free, uncritical airtime. I stopped watching the Today show in 2015 because they would have Trump call in seemingly every morning and just let him rant and never push back or question. Then when he was actually elected in 2016 it was the worst thing ever and how could this happen, oh but now we’ll cover him critically and ask questions because that’s what’s getting ratings and clicks and public support now.

Actually that is not what happened. The Enquirer bought the rights to negative stories about Trump and buried the stories.

They buried stories critical of Trump, but also coordinated directly with Trump to make up fake stories about his opponents in the GOP and Hillary Clinton (aka "fake news").

They were doing both - Pecker admitted to it yesterday on the witness stand. It was direct coordination with Trump himself and then Michael Cohen on behalf of Trump.

How is that legal?
Surely that can’t be legal, right?

Trump's lawyer is arguing that in a democracy the only way to get elected is to "influence the election." Plus, 1st Amendment rights of both Trump to advocate for himself and the National Inquirer to support whomever they want in the manner they choose.

Ted Cruz and his father really ought to be suing the National Inquirer for libel.

The legality of the coordination hinges on the payment arrangement between Trump and the National Inquirer. Trump initially reimbursed the NI for killing stories. But then he stopped paying them and NI was eating the costs for killing stories. That's an illegal campaign contribution.

I have been wondering how this is relevant to the Stormy Daniels pay-off scheme. Is it establishing a pattern of illegal behavior?

One of the fake stories they planted was that Ted Cruz had five mistresses. This demonstrates that Trump and Cohen understood that allegations of infidelity would have a negative effect on a candidate, and that by paying Stormy Daniels and killing her story Cohen was making an illegal contribution to Trump's campaign.

Trump is on trial for falsifying business records in attempt to cover up that crime.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I might feel bad if it was anyone other than Ted Cruz.

Well during the general election the Enquirer would constantly run stories about Hillary.

The Other Way the National Enquirer Helped Elect Trump
In addition to a secret agreement to bury the story of an alleged affair, the tabloid publisher AMI also published a stream of outlandish attacks on Hillary Clinton.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/national-inquirer-helped-trump-attacking-clinton/578116/

These “stories” get picked up by the more mainstream media and Hillary would have to answer questions about these stories. The stories were a long the lines of do you still beat your dog? You know stories to increase negative perceptions of candidates.

+1
The same media were supposed to pretend is “liberal.”

+1 Here’s how the “liberal media” reacted:

The people who runs these media outlets either wanted Trump to win or they are the dumbest people alive. There’s no other explanation for their behavior.

They were only thinking of the ratings, click$, and controversy. They didn’t think he could win so it was totally fine to obsessively cover his sideshow of a campaign because people were interested!!!!! Free market baby!!!!!

In 2016 I was working at a place that often had cable news playing on the break room and lobby TV’s - not usually Fox News, even, it was a pretty even mix of Fox and CNN and the network morning shows if I was there early in the morning - and I swear half the time the news networks were covering a Trump rally. Just giving him critique-free, uncritical airtime. I stopped watching the Today show in 2015 because they would have Trump call in seemingly every morning and just let him rant and never push back or question. Then when he was actually elected in 2016 it was the worst thing ever and how could this happen, oh but now we’ll cover him critically and ask questions because that’s what’s getting ratings and clicks and public support now.

This is real answer here. The media loved and still loves, covering Trump. He brings the outrage and clicks. For the past 4 years there as been a minimum of 4 articles per day in WaPo on Trump, sometimes topping a dozen!

It is all free advertising and the media won't admit they have been the ones keeping Trump alive.

And if Hillary had won it would have been 4 years of breathlessly covering her administration’s “scandals” + 4 years of WHAT WILL TRUMP DO NOW, where is Trump, are you running again in 2020/2024/whatever??? 4 years of his campaign rallies, 4 years of him calling into the Today show daily with his grievances. The media loves Trump because he brings the drama and the ratings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I might feel bad if it was anyone other than Ted Cruz.

Well during the general election the Enquirer would constantly run stories about Hillary.

The Other Way the National Enquirer Helped Elect Trump
In addition to a secret agreement to bury the story of an alleged affair, the tabloid publisher AMI also published a stream of outlandish attacks on Hillary Clinton.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/national-inquirer-helped-trump-attacking-clinton/578116/

These “stories” get picked up by the more mainstream media and Hillary would have to answer questions about these stories. The stories were a long the lines of do you still beat your dog? You know stories to increase negative perceptions of candidates.

+1
The same media were supposed to pretend is “liberal.”

+1 Here’s how the “liberal media” reacted:

The people who runs these media outlets either wanted Trump to win or they are the dumbest people alive. There’s no other explanation for their behavior.

They were only thinking of the ratings, click$, and controversy. They didn’t think he could win so it was totally fine to obsessively cover his sideshow of a campaign because people were interested!!!!! Free market baby!!!!!

In 2016 I was working at a place that often had cable news playing on the break room and lobby TV’s - not usually Fox News, even, it was a pretty even mix of Fox and CNN and the network morning shows if I was there early in the morning - and I swear half the time the news networks were covering a Trump rally. Just giving him critique-free, uncritical airtime. I stopped watching the Today show in 2015 because they would have Trump call in seemingly every morning and just let him rant and never push back or question. Then when he was actually elected in 2016 it was the worst thing ever and how could this happen, oh but now we’ll cover him critically and ask questions because that’s what’s getting ratings and clicks and public support now.

Actually that is not what happened. The Enquirer bought the rights to negative stories about Trump and buried the stories.

They buried stories critical of Trump, but also coordinated directly with Trump to make up fake stories about his opponents in the GOP and Hillary Clinton (aka "fake news").

They were doing both - Pecker admitted to it yesterday on the witness stand. It was direct coordination with Trump himself and then Michael Cohen on behalf of Trump.

How is that legal?
Surely that can’t be legal, right?

Trump's lawyer is arguing that in a democracy the only way to get elected is to "influence the election." Plus, 1st Amendment rights of both Trump to advocate for himself and the National Inquirer to support whomever they want in the manner they choose.

Ted Cruz and his father really ought to be suing the National Inquirer for libel.

The legality of the coordination hinges on the payment arrangement between Trump and the National Inquirer. Trump initially reimbursed the NI for killing stories. But then he stopped paying them and NI was eating the costs for killing stories. That's an illegal campaign contribution.

I wonder why they don't. Bootlicking aside, this could be quite the windfall for Cruz.

There were rumors years ago that Pecker’s safe full of Trump stories also held a lot of blackmail worthy information on certain political figures. Unbend the knee and the real tea gets spilled. Who knows.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I might feel bad if it was anyone other than Ted Cruz.

Well during the general election the Enquirer would constantly run stories about Hillary.

The Other Way the National Enquirer Helped Elect Trump
In addition to a secret agreement to bury the story of an alleged affair, the tabloid publisher AMI also published a stream of outlandish attacks on Hillary Clinton.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/national-inquirer-helped-trump-attacking-clinton/578116/

These “stories” get picked up by the more mainstream media and Hillary would have to answer questions about these stories. The stories were a long the lines of do you still beat your dog? You know stories to increase negative perceptions of candidates.

+1
The same media were supposed to pretend is “liberal.”

+1 Here’s how the “liberal media” reacted:

The people who runs these media outlets either wanted Trump to win or they are the dumbest people alive. There’s no other explanation for their behavior.

They were only thinking of the ratings, click$, and controversy. They didn’t think he could win so it was totally fine to obsessively cover his sideshow of a campaign because people were interested!!!!! Free market baby!!!!!

In 2016 I was working at a place that often had cable news playing on the break room and lobby TV’s - not usually Fox News, even, it was a pretty even mix of Fox and CNN and the network morning shows if I was there early in the morning - and I swear half the time the news networks were covering a Trump rally. Just giving him critique-free, uncritical airtime. I stopped watching the Today show in 2015 because they would have Trump call in seemingly every morning and just let him rant and never push back or question. Then when he was actually elected in 2016 it was the worst thing ever and how could this happen, oh but now we’ll cover him critically and ask questions because that’s what’s getting ratings and clicks and public support now.

Actually that is not what happened. The Enquirer bought the rights to negative stories about Trump and buried the stories.

They buried stories critical of Trump, but also coordinated directly with Trump to make up fake stories about his opponents in the GOP and Hillary Clinton (aka "fake news").

They were doing both - Pecker admitted to it yesterday on the witness stand. It was direct coordination with Trump himself and then Michael Cohen on behalf of Trump.

How is that legal?
Surely that can’t be legal, right?

Trump's lawyer is arguing that in a democracy the only way to get elected is to "influence the election." Plus, 1st Amendment rights of both Trump to advocate for himself and the National Inquirer to support whomever they want in the manner they choose.

Ted Cruz and his father really ought to be suing the National Inquirer for libel.

The legality of the coordination hinges on the payment arrangement between Trump and the National Inquirer. Trump initially reimbursed the NI for killing stories. But then he stopped paying them and NI was eating the costs for killing stories. That's an illegal campaign contribution.

Yes and also Trump booking the payments as legal fees for his business was fraud and not reporting them as campaign contributions was fraud. All of this has been established in Cohen’s prosecution by DOJ (while Trump was President) and Pecker’s agreement with the FEC to pay fines for making illegal campaign contributions. All that is left is to apply the same facts and standards to the co-conspirator who was the one who personally and politically benefited from the fraudulent scheme.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I might feel bad if it was anyone other than Ted Cruz.

Well during the general election the Enquirer would constantly run stories about Hillary.

The Other Way the National Enquirer Helped Elect Trump
In addition to a secret agreement to bury the story of an alleged affair, the tabloid publisher AMI also published a stream of outlandish attacks on Hillary Clinton.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/national-inquirer-helped-trump-attacking-clinton/578116/

These “stories” get picked up by the more mainstream media and Hillary would have to answer questions about these stories. The stories were a long the lines of do you still beat your dog? You know stories to increase negative perceptions of candidates.

+1
The same media were supposed to pretend is “liberal.”

+1 Here’s how the “liberal media” reacted:

The people who runs these media outlets either wanted Trump to win or they are the dumbest people alive. There’s no other explanation for their behavior.

They were only thinking of the ratings, click$, and controversy. They didn’t think he could win so it was totally fine to obsessively cover his sideshow of a campaign because people were interested!!!!! Free market baby!!!!!

In 2016 I was working at a place that often had cable news playing on the break room and lobby TV’s - not usually Fox News, even, it was a pretty even mix of Fox and CNN and the network morning shows if I was there early in the morning - and I swear half the time the news networks were covering a Trump rally. Just giving him critique-free, uncritical airtime. I stopped watching the Today show in 2015 because they would have Trump call in seemingly every morning and just let him rant and never push back or question. Then when he was actually elected in 2016 it was the worst thing ever and how could this happen, oh but now we’ll cover him critically and ask questions because that’s what’s getting ratings and clicks and public support now.

This is real answer here. The media loved and still loves, covering Trump. He brings the outrage and clicks. For the past 4 years there as been a minimum of 4 articles per day in WaPo on Trump, sometimes topping a dozen!

It is all free advertising and the media won't admit they have been the ones keeping Trump alive.

You’re halfway there. That they cover Trump isn’t the problematic part, it’s that they don’t convey the actual danger and damage. About 80% of the it’s a winky, “can you believe this guy but boys will be boys” article about whatever crime Trump has commit. The media reports on Democrats in such a fashion that they’re brought to heel but, oh, let’s say the GOP refusing to seat Obama’s nominee because nine months out is “too close to the election” but the GOP installing a handmaiden as people are voting is somehow acceptable? A few op eds talked about it, but it was never treated as the mess it was.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I might feel bad if it was anyone other than Ted Cruz.

Well during the general election the Enquirer would constantly run stories about Hillary.

The Other Way the National Enquirer Helped Elect Trump
In addition to a secret agreement to bury the story of an alleged affair, the tabloid publisher AMI also published a stream of outlandish attacks on Hillary Clinton.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/national-inquirer-helped-trump-attacking-clinton/578116/

These “stories” get picked up by the more mainstream media and Hillary would have to answer questions about these stories. The stories were a long the lines of do you still beat your dog? You know stories to increase negative perceptions of candidates.

+1
The same media were supposed to pretend is “liberal.”

+1 Here’s how the “liberal media” reacted:

The people who runs these media outlets either wanted Trump to win or they are the dumbest people alive. There’s no other explanation for their behavior.

They were only thinking of the ratings, click$, and controversy. They didn’t think he could win so it was totally fine to obsessively cover his sideshow of a campaign because people were interested!!!!! Free market baby!!!!!

In 2016 I was working at a place that often had cable news playing on the break room and lobby TV’s - not usually Fox News, even, it was a pretty even mix of Fox and CNN and the network morning shows if I was there early in the morning - and I swear half the time the news networks were covering a Trump rally. Just giving him critique-free, uncritical airtime. I stopped watching the Today show in 2015 because they would have Trump call in seemingly every morning and just let him rant and never push back or question. Then when he was actually elected in 2016 it was the worst thing ever and how could this happen, oh but now we’ll cover him critically and ask questions because that’s what’s getting ratings and clicks and public support now.

Actually that is not what happened. The Enquirer bought the rights to negative stories about Trump and buried the stories.

They buried stories critical of Trump, but also coordinated directly with Trump to make up fake stories about his opponents in the GOP and Hillary Clinton (aka "fake news").

They were doing both - Pecker admitted to it yesterday on the witness stand. It was direct coordination with Trump himself and then Michael Cohen on behalf of Trump.

How is that legal?
Surely that can’t be legal, right?

Trump's lawyer is arguing that in a democracy the only way to get elected is to "influence the election." Plus, 1st Amendment rights of both Trump to advocate for himself and the National Inquirer to support whomever they want in the manner they choose.

Ted Cruz and his father really ought to be suing the National Inquirer for libel.

The legality of the coordination hinges on the payment arrangement between Trump and the National Inquirer. Trump initially reimbursed the NI for killing stories. But then he stopped paying them and NI was eating the costs for killing stories. That's an illegal campaign contribution.

I wonder why they don't. Bootlicking aside, this could be quite the windfall for Cruz.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I might feel bad if it was anyone other than Ted Cruz.

Well during the general election the Enquirer would constantly run stories about Hillary.

The Other Way the National Enquirer Helped Elect Trump
In addition to a secret agreement to bury the story of an alleged affair, the tabloid publisher AMI also published a stream of outlandish attacks on Hillary Clinton.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/national-inquirer-helped-trump-attacking-clinton/578116/

These “stories” get picked up by the more mainstream media and Hillary would have to answer questions about these stories. The stories were a long the lines of do you still beat your dog? You know stories to increase negative perceptions of candidates.

+1
The same media were supposed to pretend is “liberal.”

+1 Here’s how the “liberal media” reacted:

The people who runs these media outlets either wanted Trump to win or they are the dumbest people alive. There’s no other explanation for their behavior.

They were only thinking of the ratings, click$, and controversy. They didn’t think he could win so it was totally fine to obsessively cover his sideshow of a campaign because people were interested!!!!! Free market baby!!!!!

In 2016 I was working at a place that often had cable news playing on the break room and lobby TV’s - not usually Fox News, even, it was a pretty even mix of Fox and CNN and the network morning shows if I was there early in the morning - and I swear half the time the news networks were covering a Trump rally. Just giving him critique-free, uncritical airtime. I stopped watching the Today show in 2015 because they would have Trump call in seemingly every morning and just let him rant and never push back or question. Then when he was actually elected in 2016 it was the worst thing ever and how could this happen, oh but now we’ll cover him critically and ask questions because that’s what’s getting ratings and clicks and public support now.

Actually that is not what happened. The Enquirer bought the rights to negative stories about Trump and buried the stories.

They buried stories critical of Trump, but also coordinated directly with Trump to make up fake stories about his opponents in the GOP and Hillary Clinton (aka "fake news").

They were doing both - Pecker admitted to it yesterday on the witness stand. It was direct coordination with Trump himself and then Michael Cohen on behalf of Trump.

How is that legal?
Surely that can’t be legal, right?

Trump's lawyer is arguing that in a democracy the only way to get elected is to "influence the election." Plus, 1st Amendment rights of both Trump to advocate for himself and the National Inquirer to support whomever they want in the manner they choose.

Ted Cruz and his father really ought to be suing the National Inquirer for libel.

The legality of the coordination hinges on the payment arrangement between Trump and the National Inquirer. Trump initially reimbursed the NI for killing stories. But then he stopped paying them and NI was eating the costs for killing stories. That's an illegal campaign contribution.

I have been wondering how this is relevant to the Stormy Daniels pay-off scheme. Is it establishing a pattern of illegal behavior?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I might feel bad if it was anyone other than Ted Cruz.

Well during the general election the Enquirer would constantly run stories about Hillary.

The Other Way the National Enquirer Helped Elect Trump
In addition to a secret agreement to bury the story of an alleged affair, the tabloid publisher AMI also published a stream of outlandish attacks on Hillary Clinton.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/national-inquirer-helped-trump-attacking-clinton/578116/

These “stories” get picked up by the more mainstream media and Hillary would have to answer questions about these stories. The stories were a long the lines of do you still beat your dog? You know stories to increase negative perceptions of candidates.

+1
The same media were supposed to pretend is “liberal.”

+1 Here’s how the “liberal media” reacted:

The people who runs these media outlets either wanted Trump to win or they are the dumbest people alive. There’s no other explanation for their behavior.

They were only thinking of the ratings, click$, and controversy. They didn’t think he could win so it was totally fine to obsessively cover his sideshow of a campaign because people were interested!!!!! Free market baby!!!!!

In 2016 I was working at a place that often had cable news playing on the break room and lobby TV’s - not usually Fox News, even, it was a pretty even mix of Fox and CNN and the network morning shows if I was there early in the morning - and I swear half the time the news networks were covering a Trump rally. Just giving him critique-free, uncritical airtime. I stopped watching the Today show in 2015 because they would have Trump call in seemingly every morning and just let him rant and never push back or question. Then when he was actually elected in 2016 it was the worst thing ever and how could this happen, oh but now we’ll cover him critically and ask questions because that’s what’s getting ratings and clicks and public support now.

This is real answer here. The media loved and still loves, covering Trump. He brings the outrage and clicks. For the past 4 years there as been a minimum of 4 articles per day in WaPo on Trump, sometimes topping a dozen!

It is all free advertising and the media won't admit they have been the ones keeping Trump alive.

I will readily admit that I consumed a lot more "news" during the Trump years. He was always doing something shocking and disturbing, so of course I would read about it or watch CNN or the NewsHour.

Under Biden? There's a lot less drama and I can focus on other things in my life. The media hates this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I might feel bad if it was anyone other than Ted Cruz.

Well during the general election the Enquirer would constantly run stories about Hillary.

The Other Way the National Enquirer Helped Elect Trump
In addition to a secret agreement to bury the story of an alleged affair, the tabloid publisher AMI also published a stream of outlandish attacks on Hillary Clinton.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/national-inquirer-helped-trump-attacking-clinton/578116/

These “stories” get picked up by the more mainstream media and Hillary would have to answer questions about these stories. The stories were a long the lines of do you still beat your dog? You know stories to increase negative perceptions of candidates.

+1
The same media were supposed to pretend is “liberal.”

+1 Here’s how the “liberal media” reacted:

The people who runs these media outlets either wanted Trump to win or they are the dumbest people alive. There’s no other explanation for their behavior.

They were only thinking of the ratings, click$, and controversy. They didn’t think he could win so it was totally fine to obsessively cover his sideshow of a campaign because people were interested!!!!! Free market baby!!!!!

In 2016 I was working at a place that often had cable news playing on the break room and lobby TV’s - not usually Fox News, even, it was a pretty even mix of Fox and CNN and the network morning shows if I was there early in the morning - and I swear half the time the news networks were covering a Trump rally. Just giving him critique-free, uncritical airtime. I stopped watching the Today show in 2015 because they would have Trump call in seemingly every morning and just let him rant and never push back or question. Then when he was actually elected in 2016 it was the worst thing ever and how could this happen, oh but now we’ll cover him critically and ask questions because that’s what’s getting ratings and clicks and public support now.

This is real answer here. The media loved and still loves, covering Trump. He brings the outrage and clicks. For the past 4 years there as been a minimum of 4 articles per day in WaPo on Trump, sometimes topping a dozen!

It is all free advertising and the media won't admit they have been the ones keeping Trump alive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I might feel bad if it was anyone other than Ted Cruz.

Well during the general election the Enquirer would constantly run stories about Hillary.

The Other Way the National Enquirer Helped Elect Trump
In addition to a secret agreement to bury the story of an alleged affair, the tabloid publisher AMI also published a stream of outlandish attacks on Hillary Clinton.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/national-inquirer-helped-trump-attacking-clinton/578116/

These “stories” get picked up by the more mainstream media and Hillary would have to answer questions about these stories. The stories were a long the lines of do you still beat your dog? You know stories to increase negative perceptions of candidates.

+1
The same media were supposed to pretend is “liberal.”

+1 Here’s how the “liberal media” reacted:

The people who runs these media outlets either wanted Trump to win or they are the dumbest people alive. There’s no other explanation for their behavior.

They were only thinking of the ratings, click$, and controversy. They didn’t think he could win so it was totally fine to obsessively cover his sideshow of a campaign because people were interested!!!!! Free market baby!!!!!

In 2016 I was working at a place that often had cable news playing on the break room and lobby TV’s - not usually Fox News, even, it was a pretty even mix of Fox and CNN and the network morning shows if I was there early in the morning - and I swear half the time the news networks were covering a Trump rally. Just giving him critique-free, uncritical airtime. I stopped watching the Today show in 2015 because they would have Trump call in seemingly every morning and just let him rant and never push back or question. Then when he was actually elected in 2016 it was the worst thing ever and how could this happen, oh but now we’ll cover him critically and ask questions because that’s what’s getting ratings and clicks and public support now.

Actually that is not what happened. The Enquirer bought the rights to negative stories about Trump and buried the stories.

They buried stories critical of Trump, but also coordinated directly with Trump to make up fake stories about his opponents in the GOP and Hillary Clinton (aka "fake news").

They were doing both - Pecker admitted to it yesterday on the witness stand. It was direct coordination with Trump himself and then Michael Cohen on behalf of Trump.

How is that legal?
Surely that can’t be legal, right?

Trump's lawyer is arguing that in a democracy the only way to get elected is to "influence the election." Plus, 1st Amendment rights of both Trump to advocate for himself and the National Inquirer to support whomever they want in the manner they choose.

Ted Cruz and his father really ought to be suing the National Inquirer for libel.

The legality of the coordination hinges on the payment arrangement between Trump and the National Inquirer. Trump initially reimbursed the NI for killing stories. But then he stopped paying them and NI was eating the costs for killing stories. That's an illegal campaign contribution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Surely everyone understands that tabloids MAKE STUFF UP?

This is how disinformation and misinformation takes root. News orgs “report” on made up stories and “just ask questions” about the allegations they contain. And suddenly there’s a narrative.

Aren't these the same "news" outlets that talk about aliens living among us and the lochness monster?

Dp- no. That is not what they are talking about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Surely everyone understands that tabloids MAKE STUFF UP?

This is how disinformation and misinformation takes root. News orgs “report” on made up stories and “just ask questions” about the allegations they contain. And suddenly there’s a narrative.

Aren't these the same "news" outlets that talk about aliens living among us and the lochness monster?